Economic evaluation of health effects with preference imprecision

Health Economics

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 403-417

  Vázquez, María Xosé ^a   Araña, Jorge E ^b   León, Carmelo J ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIGO   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LAS PALMAS DE GRAN CANARIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Economic valuation; Health; Imprecision; Pollution; Preferences

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; AIR POLLUTION; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; DISEASE SEVERITY; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; SYMPTOMATOLOGY;

BAYES THEOREM; FINANCING, PERSONAL; HUMANS; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; SPAIN; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 33646063176     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: 10991050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.1079     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Cropper ML, Freeman AM. Environmental health effects. In Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality, Braden JB, Kolstad CD (eds). Elsevier Science Publishers, North-Holland: Amsterdam, 1991.
2. Mitchell RC, Carson RT. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods. The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, 1989.
3. Hanemann M. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 1984; 66: 332-341.
4. Cameron T, James M. Efficient estimation methods for the use with 'closed-ended' contingent valuation survey data. Rev Econ Stat 1987; 69: 269-276.
5. Hoehn JP, Randall A. A satisfactory benefit-cost indicator of contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 1987; 14: 226-247.
6. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, Learner E, Radner R, Schuman H. Report of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Panel on Contingent Valuation. Fed Register 1993; 58: 4602-4614.
7. Welsh M, Poe G. Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. J Environ Econ Manage 1998; 36: 170-185.
8. Gregory R, Lichtenstein TC, Brown TC, Peterson GL, Slovic P. How precise are monetary representations of environmental improvements? Land Econ 1995; 71: 462-473.
9. Brown TC, Champ PA, Bishop RC, McCollum DW. Which response format reveals de truth about donations to a public good. Land Econ 1996; 72: 152-166.
10. Schulze W, McClelland G, Waldman D, Lazo J. Sources of bias in contingent valuation. In The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources, Bjornstad DJ, Kahn JR (eds). Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, 1996.
11. Ready S, Navrud S, Dubourg R. How do respondents with uncertain willingness to pay answer contingent valuation questions? Benefits transfer and the economic valuation of environmental damage in the European Union: with special reference to health. Report to DG XII, 1999.
12. Dubourg WR, Jones-Lee MW, Loomes G. Imprecise preferences and the WTP-WTA disparity. J Risk Uncertainty 1994; 9: 115-133.
13. Dubourg WR, Jones-Lee MW, Loomes G. Imprecise preferences and survey design in contingent valuation. Economica 1997; 64: 681-702.
14. Halvorsen B. Ordering effects in contingent valuation surveys. Willingness to pay for reduced health damage from air pollution. Environ Resour Econ 1996; 8: 485-499.
15. Pearce D, Crowards T. Particulate matter and human health in the UK. Energy Policy 1996; 24: 609-619.
16. Alberini A, Cropper M, Fu TT, Krupnick A, Liu JT, Shaw D, Harrington W. Valuing health effects of air pollution in developing countries: the case of Taiwan. J Environ Econ Manage 1997; 34: 107-126.
17. Loehman ET, Park S, Boldt D. Willingness to pay for gains and losses in visibility and health. Land Econ 1997; 70: 478-498.
18. Berger MC, Blomquist GC, Kenkel D, Tolley, GS. Valuing changes in health risks: a comparison of alternative measures. Southern Econ J 1987; 53: 967-984.
19. Dickie M, Gerking S, Brookshire D et al. Reconciling Averting Behaviour and Contingent Valuation Benefit Estimates of Reducing Symptoms Of Ozone Exposure. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 1987.
20. Tolley G, Kenkel D, Fabian D. Valuing Health for Policy An Economic Approach. The University of Chicago Press: Londres, 1994.
21. Navrud S. Valuing health impacts from air pollution in Europe. New empirical evidence on morbidity. Department of Economics and Social Sciences. Discussion Paper, 98-04, Agricultural University of Norway, Aas, Norway, 1998.
22. Li CZ, Mattson L. Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 1995; 28: 256-269.
23. Johanesson M, Liljas B, Johansson PO. An Experimental Comparison of Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions and Real Purchase Decisions. Department of Economics, Stockholm School of Economics: Estocolmo, Suecia, 1996.
24. Champ PA, Bishop RC, Brown TC, McCollumDW. Using donation mechanisms to value nonuse benefits from public goods. J Environ Econ Manage 1997; 5: 151-162.
25. Ready RC, Whitehead JC, Blomquist GC. Contingent valuation when respondents are ambivalent. J Environ Econ Manage 1995; 29: 181-196.
26. Svento R. Some notes on trichotomous choice contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 1993; 3: 533-543.
27. Wang H. Treatment of 'don't know' responses in contingent valuation surveys: a random valuation model. J Environ Econ Manage 1997; 32: 219-232.
28. Loomis J, Ekstrand E. Alternative approaches for incorporating respondent's uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay: the case of Mexican spotted owl. Ecol Econ 1998; 27: 29-41.
29. Hanemann M, Kriström B. Preference uncertainty, optimal designs and spikes. In Current Issues in Environmental Economics, Johansson PO, Kriström B, Mäler KG (eds). Manchester University Press: Manchester, 1995.
30. Donaldson C, Jones AM, Mapp TJ, Olson JA. Limited dependent variables in willingness to pay studies: applications in health care. Appl Econ 1998; 30: 667-677.
31. Griffiths WH, Hill RC, Pope PJ. Small sample properties of probit models estimators. J Am Stat Assoc 1987; 82: 929-937.
32. McCulloch R, Rossi P. An exact likelihood analysis of the multinomial probit model. J Econometrics 1994; 64: 207-240.
33. Albert JH, Chib S. Bayesian analysis of binary and polichotomous response data. J Am Stat Assoc 1993; 88: 669-679.
34. Devroye L. Non-Uniform Random Variate Generation. Springer: New York, 1986.
35. Rowe RD, Schulze WE, Breffle WS. A test of payment card biases. J Environ Econ Manage 1996; 31: 178-185.
36. Krupnick AJ, Harrington W, Ostro B. Ambient ozone and acute health effects: evidence from daily data. J Environ Econ Manage 1990; 18: 1-18.
37. Ostro BD. Air pollution and morbidity revisited: a specification test. J Environ Econ Manage 1987; 14: 87-98.
38. Sunyer J, Sáez M, Murillo C, Castellsague J, Martínez F, Antó JM. Air pollution and emergency room admissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a 5-year study. Am J Epidemiol 1993; 137: 701-705.
39. Schwartz J. Air pollution and hospital admissions for respiratory disease. Epidemiology 1996; 7: 20-28.